Death and Taxes... well mostly taxes...

[licker]

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by johan osterman:
In the early stages of dom 2 development there were some discussions of changing the way unrest works, so that there was a provincial unrest and one national happiness factor for the whole empire as well as a couple of other ideas,

I'm very glad you stuck with the current model. Nationalism/Nations may seem the sort of thing thats been around for ever but the standard view in history is that it arose with the rise of the bourgeoise/capitalist state. A French peasant in the middle ages suffered most at the hands of the french rulers - the community of interest many suppose didn't exist on the whole. The emergence of free cities and the conflicts between the nobles and the merchants that this entailed is another example of how disparate interest were in these times.

I think most of the criticisms of the tax system are on the level of "this doesn't feel right." This is not particularily helpful as what feels wrong to a modern person may feel quite right for a feudal lord. Could the critics respond more to the historical details being used against them and rely less on commen sense as it is no guide whatsoever when you leave behind the commen.

Cheers

Keir

Cheers

Keir

---

Historical details? What on earth do historical details have to do with this? Dominions may borrow from history/mythology, but its not a historical simulator of some kind. Now before you take those words and use them against me, let me remind you that what I'm after is modifing a game mechanic that not only 'doesn't feel right', it quite simply isn't right in the context of its effect on the rest of the game.

Simply put the freedom to *raise* taxes, especially in provinces with existing unrest, to the maximum level makes no sense. Moreover, historically it simply wasn't possible, again in the context of the abstracted unrest and taxes in dominions, without useing some kind of military or other *stationary* force to enforce compliance. I have no problems with using pillagers to do this, but the free destruction one gets from simply setting taxes to 200%, *especially in newly conquered provinces* is simply abuseive of the system.

Now please tell me what would be wrong with my original suggestion of capping the amount that taxes can be raised (over 100%)? Does it have a negative effect on the game overall? Does it not fix the 'problem' that at least some people are concerned with?

And please, keep the history lessons in the books, they are not germain to this discussion of game mechanics. (though they are otherwise quite interesting )

[Keir Maxwell]

Originally posted by licker:
[Historical details? What on earth do historical details have to do with this? Dominions may borrow from history/mythology,

Ever heard of Lord of the Rings? Y'know the fantasy series by that Tolkien dude? Yeah the expert in ancient Languages and history who created a believable world because he understood the structures of certain levels of human development, the way human thought and language changes with different social orders. Its not a coincidence that the Lord of The Rings is so widely aclaimed.

Dominions is, to my understanding, deeply rooted in our history and this is a big part of why it is so good.

Simply put the freedom to *raise* taxes, especially in provinces with existing unrest, to the maximum level makes no sense. Moreover, historically it simply wasn't possible,

Hang on you don't care about history? So what is your basis for saying something is odd then? As compared to what?

The ability to raise crippling taxes existed and was excercised. Whole populations were deported, slaughtered, had one hand chopped off, decimated and many other atrocities. So why can't we raise taxes to 200%? Is 20 unrest really such a big deal? It only takes one turn to recover at 0% taxes. Economic warfare was extremely commen in history - especially when hard to take strongholds abounded. On of the reasons you choise to fight a battle is to stop your crops being burnt.

The english tactic in the 100 years war, described previously, represents the exact form of warfare you object to so where is the problem in terms of history?

Now please tell me what would be wrong with my
original suggestion of capping the amount that taxes can be raised (over 100%)? Does it have a negative effect on the game overall?

Yes. As noted by others, the existing system allows people to choose to either conquer peacefully (lower taxes to 0%) or conquer brutally - raise taxes to 200% or somewhere in between. Its a good feature and I think your suggestion would be kill joy.

"Ooh no big bad tyrant you can't be a brutal conqueror, no you have to delay a turn in each province to pillage and thus cripple your campaign"

Sod that - instant taxes = booty from pillage during conquest. No problem.

And please, keep the history lessons in the books, they are not germain to this discussion of game mechanics. (though they are otherwise quite interesting )

Actually I think the history is very relevant and if you want to make a counter case what are you going base it on? Your own personal grasp of the logic of fantasy universes? Sorta leaves us lacking a commen ground. Sure magics and real gods changes things but this is how the peoples of ancient history percieved the world anyway so their perspective is very relevant. The way the ancients fought is also very relevant as they faced many of the same physical constraints.

Cheers

Keir

[ January 04, 2004, 01:07: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]

[apoger]

>The ability to raise crippling taxes existed and was excercised.

Not without troops to keep the peace.


This entire discussion is foolish. It has been established clearly that "taxes/tax rate/unrest" is actually an abstraction.

Licker: If you don't like the system, make your point courteously and hope that if enough people speak out, that IW will care. Frankly I'm with you in not being particularly happy with the whole economic system.

Keir: If you like the system, just say so. No need to rationalize about how the system is realistic, it isn't, and it's not even meant to be.

Now shake hands and be friends.

[PvK]

Sounds like the two sides of the discussion are still imagining different events behind the game effects.

In general, I think Illwinter's explanations are easy for me to imagine making sense.

Setting tax to 200% doesn't for one turn cause effects that are difficult to quickly recover from, in the game.

I think having tax levels for each province makes a lot of sense for a fantasy/medieval game world. Generalizing, most medieval peasants spent their entire lives within a day's march of their home, and on average were kept in their economic position by "taxes". Each local lord would deal with their people in their own way. I imagine that consistent tax policy across an empire would be exceptional. Which isn't to say that a convenient control wouldn't be handy, but the Nation Overview seems to do a good enough job to me.

100% tax probably means the peasants get to keep enough food not to starve. If a new lord arrives and says they have to give everything they have, or twice as much as they used to give, this is not going to require more than the existing people who used to collect and bring the tribute to the previous lord. The effect will be that people won't have enough to eat, and will start to get ill, to go into hiding or leave, for people to start taking from each other, and other various peasantly chaos.

As I wrote earlier in the thread, ya it should be more damaging and lucrative if you use actual troops, but I don't think it'd be entirely necessary. Few if any peasants are going to think of or attempt organized direct mutiny, even against local non-military honchos.

I still haven't studied how the system works in all cases, but I haven't seen any numbers that show anything that looks broken to me.

My only suspected criticism would be that perhaps the population should grow a bit more in times of peace and low taxes. Sometimes population migrates away in impressive percentages, but it only very rarely seems to arrive anywhere else.

PvK

[ January 04, 2004, 09:55: Message edited by: PvK ]

[Endoperez]

Even if there are no armies, there might be enough officials to do their work. Did the Sheriff of Nottingham have an army of few thousand men? I think he didn't. Said by Johan earlier in this thread:

You are assumed to have some adminstrative authorities in place in a province even when you do not have any commanders there, they are assumed to be able to threaten the populance enough to recieve the increased incomes.

I dont think that the game should limit the tax level. Taxes are the king's prerogative and so the players should be free to do what they want. But revolts should be much more common ('A good shepherd should shear his flock, not skin it' said the Roman saying).
What about the following : taxes are not limited but when unrest reaches 100, there is a chance every season that the province openly rebel. The chance is (unrest level -100) %. Or 10% for 110 unrest, and 100% for 200 unrest. If the insurrection happens you see 30 indep units (or 1/1000 pop ?) appearing from nowhere to free the province. This solution is both logical and realistic : dont you think that local population could revolt if taxes are killing them, if pillage is allowed or if young virgins are abducted by evil mages ?
Cheers

[licker]

Firstly I think I made my point courteously, my post asking for the real world history to be kept in check isn't an attack, its a simple statement that as far as game mechanics go in a fantasy based computer game, what actually happened in *our* history has little bearing. What does matter is that the system is satisfing and works within the framework of the game, the fact that the English pillaged without keeping a local force (though they must have used their troops for this anyway...) is entirely beside any point when discussing the abstraction of unrest in Dominions. Either the system works for you or it doesnt. Obviously it doesn't work for me, and if your criticism of my view lies on the fact that I am not a historian, then you fail to grasp that this is a game, not a historical simulator.

It is for that precise reason that I often argue against using 'reality' as an arguement for why game mechanics should exist or be changed, reality in a game should be based more on enjoyability or serving a greater function in the game than on keeping up with what people think makes sense based on reality. Now you will notice that that sentiment precludes me from using historical evidence to support my views, then again that's not really a problem for me, I'm trying to keep on message with the notion that this tactic is flawed from a game mechanics point of view, and it is abusable. We can talk about realism and rationalizations supporting both sides of the argument, but neither side will move an inch that way, that's why I ask to keep history out of it, that's why I ask to look at the effects on game play rather than anyones personal thoughts on what is realistic and what is not.

I suppose the main difference of opinion then lies in how we interpret the abstractness of unrest and taxes. I take it to be removed from military entirely, as no military is needed to enforce the harsher policies. Sure the sheriff of Nottingham didn't have a 1000 men running around, but then again the scale of dominions doesn't have 1000 men running around very often either, at least not in any single province. It would satisfy me if there were a level of local militia required to support higher taxes, I could accept their presence as the backbone that enforces the lords will. Simply put, for me, provinces with zero military presence and high taxes should not provide either the income they do, nor the unrest that is generated.

Anyway, I'm hopeful that this discussion has created some new food for thought for the devs and how they approach the economic aspect of dominions, wheather or not a change is effected to 'correct' ( ) this aspect or not isn't all that critical to me, I'm more than satisfied to continue to look at game elements that seem weak and seek ways to improve them.

As to the Lord of the Rings... what can I say? I loved the book and the movies, but I can honestly say that my enjoyment of them had nothing to do with Tolkins ability to keep some historical basis in it. The story is what was compelling, the world of middle earth is to me no better and no worse than any other fantasy based world I've encountered in books. In fact my favorate fantasy series is Stephen Donaldsons six books on Thomas Covenent, though I'm not sure why thats germain to this point Just thought I'd pimp Donaldson, all his works are excellent, and hey, he lives in New Mexico